HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » OK, I gotta say it. Women...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 11:46 AM

OK, I gotta say it. Women don't belong in combat.

Neither do men.








104 replies, 10711 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 104 replies Author Time Post
Reply OK, I gotta say it. Women don't belong in combat. (Original post)
Jackpine Radical Jan 2013 OP
quinnox Jan 2013 #1
ROBROX Jan 2013 #47
niyad Jan 2013 #2
PDJane Jan 2013 #3
mokawanis Jan 2013 #4
redqueen Jan 2013 #5
nick of time Jan 2013 #6
Jackpine Radical Jan 2013 #8
nick of time Jan 2013 #11
pinboy3niner Jan 2013 #7
sarisataka Jan 2013 #9
Siwsan Jan 2013 #10
Joey Liberal Jan 2013 #37
RoccoR5955 Jan 2013 #12
Jackpine Radical Jan 2013 #16
vlyons Jan 2013 #32
Cynicus Emeritus Jan 2013 #13
CrispyQ Jan 2013 #14
dixiegrrrrl Jan 2013 #20
freshwest Jan 2013 #30
Dark n Stormy Knight Jan 2013 #34
forestpath Jan 2013 #15
klook Jan 2013 #17
TheKentuckian Jan 2013 #18
KauaiK Jan 2013 #19
smirkymonkey Jan 2013 #55
stevenleser Jan 2013 #61
Jackpine Radical Jan 2013 #82
1monster Jan 2013 #21
Tagish_Charlie Jan 2013 #51
dangin Jan 2013 #22
dairydog91 Jan 2013 #23
Dark n Stormy Knight Jan 2013 #27
cer7711 Jan 2013 #24
pasto76 Jan 2013 #40
cer7711 Jan 2013 #50
MADem Jan 2013 #62
pinboy3niner Jan 2013 #63
cer7711 Jan 2013 #67
pinboy3niner Jan 2013 #69
cer7711 Jan 2013 #72
MADem Jan 2013 #74
cer7711 Jan 2013 #65
MADem Jan 2013 #66
cer7711 Jan 2013 #71
MADem Jan 2013 #73
cer7711 Jan 2013 #86
MADem Jan 2013 #88
4Q2u2 Jan 2013 #78
MADem Jan 2013 #85
4Q2u2 Jan 2013 #93
MADem Jan 2013 #94
4Q2u2 Jan 2013 #100
MADem Jan 2013 #101
4Q2u2 Jan 2013 #104
Tierra_y_Libertad Jan 2013 #25
whatchamacallit Jan 2013 #41
SCVDem Jan 2013 #26
Egalitarian Thug Jan 2013 #28
SciFiRK Jan 2013 #29
DesertDiamond Jan 2013 #31
Chorophyll Jan 2013 #33
RC Jan 2013 #83
TxDemChem Jan 2013 #35
Brainstormy Jan 2013 #36
bobclark86 Jan 2013 #38
another_liberal Jan 2013 #39
whatchamacallit Jan 2013 #42
judesedit Jan 2013 #43
cbrer Jan 2013 #44
RedCappedBandit Jan 2013 #45
felix_numinous Jan 2013 #46
onlyadream Jan 2013 #48
hue Jan 2013 #49
kworkman Jan 2013 #52
99Forever Jan 2013 #53
love_katz Jan 2013 #54
WHEN CRABS ROAR Jan 2013 #56
tclambert Jan 2013 #57
MADem Jan 2013 #91
woo me with science Jan 2013 #58
libdem4life Jan 2013 #59
Mnemosyne Jan 2013 #60
Liberty Belle Jan 2013 #64
MADem Jan 2013 #68
Liberty Belle Jan 2013 #98
MADem Jan 2013 #102
Logical Jan 2013 #81
Liberty Belle Jan 2013 #99
tavalon Jan 2013 #70
nikto Jan 2013 #75
orpupilofnature57 Jan 2013 #76
sulphurdunn Jan 2013 #77
randr Jan 2013 #79
Wernothelpless Jan 2013 #80
MADem Jan 2013 #89
pinboy3niner Jan 2013 #84
Jackpine Radical Jan 2013 #87
Oilwellian Jan 2013 #96
WillyT Jan 2013 #90
Apophis Jan 2013 #92
Oilwellian Jan 2013 #95
moondust Jan 2013 #97
MADem Jan 2013 #103

Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 11:48 AM

1. thanks for saying it

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #1)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 03:52 PM

47. NOBODY SHOULD BE FIGHTING A WAR

 

As a veteran I volunteered and I served in a position I was trained to serve.

Therefore it is proven that ALL members of the service are trained for the position they will have in the military. Those that can shoot will be shooters. Those who are technical will have a technical position. Today everyone in the military on land or sea will be exposed to battle.

I got out just as women were being allowed to serve on ships. Women should have all the rights to BE ALL THEY CAN BE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 11:52 AM

2. correct

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 11:53 AM

3. Yes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 11:53 AM

4. Exactly right! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 11:53 AM

5. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 11:55 AM

6. Yours?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nick of time (Reply #6)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 11:58 AM

8. Let's just say I know whereof I speak.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #8)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 12:00 PM

11. Cool.

 

I hold just about the same.
And I pretty much agree with you, men and women don't belong in combat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 11:57 AM

7. Yep





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 11:58 AM

9. Amen

BTDT have the T-shirt to prove it (just in a different hell)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 12:00 PM

10. From personal experience, any woman in the military experiences a form of combat

Maybe things have gotten better since my time in the Navy, but the harrassment and disrespect could, at times, be overwhelming.

I actually had a bullet zip by my head, while I was in my barracks room. It was fired by a couple of morons, across the common court yard. When the military police showed up, they did a cursory investigation and nothing more. When we complained, they laughed and said that the guys were probably just trying to get our attention!!!! Shortly after, I moved off base to an apartment in South Philly, during the height of the Atlantic City mob war. Yet, I felt safer than I did, living on base.

I won't even go into the harrassment stories because they still haunt me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Siwsan (Reply #10)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 02:11 PM

37. Sorry that you had to experience that stuff

I shudder at the thought of what women would experience in infantry training and in infantry units.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 12:06 PM

12. Nobody belongs in combat...

War is obsolete. So said His Holiness, the Dalai Lama.
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2004-09-20/news/0409200120_1_dalai-lama-century-listeners

That was way back in 2004!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #12)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 12:16 PM

16. As religious leaders go,

the Dalai Lama is certainly the one I most respect.

I don't think I have ever heard anything from him that I disagree with. For one thing, he is very oriented toward science, and sees no conflict between science and his belief system. Nor does he think everyone has to become a Buddhist. He does endorse the practice of meditation of course, but then, western psychology has arrived by a different path to the same conclusion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #12)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 01:46 PM

32. War is over if you want it.

So said John Lennon and Yoko Ono Lennon.
And so say I!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 12:06 PM

13. But it's wonderful that women are allowed in combat.

 

That's what the war mongering, war profiteering elite are elatedly saying, just like Romney and his 47%. Even though they also claim we're broke, there is always enough money for another optional war of choice somewhere in the world and especially in the Middle East or thereabouts.

Women in combat = more cannon fodder = more profits = more brain washing, and more propaganda that wars of choice are about protecting our freedoms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 12:13 PM

14. "War doesn't determine who's right, only who's left."

Maybe someday we'll learn?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrispyQ (Reply #14)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 12:40 PM

20. Maybe someday we'll learn?

I used to hope so. Now I don't.
The face of war changes, but the constant " I want what the other kid has" never seems to.
I have come to the conclusion that PEACE is an aberration, and war is normal.

Did you ever see that You Tube History of war condensed into a few minutes on the world map?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dixiegrrrrl (Reply #20)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 01:45 PM

30. I'd say that graphic only showed a tenth or less what was going on.

And from a Eurocentric perspective. In the Americas and every other continent, wars have been waged over territory for much longer than that, and during that period. On the scale they were waged, they may have seemed less violent, but as the peoples of those regions know, there has been genocide going on forever. In a certain way of thinking, the only wars are mechanized ones - that's not the case. There is also what is called the war of the day, economic and religious war on others waged daily without guns or bombs. They determine who will have power, land and resources. IOW, politics.

Ambrose Bierce defined Peace in his book, The Devil's Dictionary:

Peace, in international affairs, is a period of cheating between two periods of fighting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrispyQ (Reply #14)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 01:47 PM

34. Never heard that one. Perfect.

And yeah, about the NRA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 12:15 PM

15. K&R

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 12:23 PM

17. War is STILL a racket. (n/t)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 12:28 PM

18. True but better than automation. The automation makes it too cheap and easy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 12:29 PM

19. I want to see

Women as part of the decision making process of whether or not to use force for go to war. We now have so many men AND women who have suffered so much for the bravado and grandstanding of the chicken-hawks of the Bush Cheney regime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KauaiK (Reply #19)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 06:59 PM

55. +10.000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KauaiK (Reply #19)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 12:26 AM

61. Women like Margaret Thatcher? Indira Gandhi? Queen Elizabeth I? Cleopatra?

It's wishful thinking to think that women will be less warlike

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #61)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 11:08 AM

82. Sure--as long as they're balanced

by men like Gandhi, MLK & Smedley Butler.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 12:43 PM

21. And I've got to say this: Neither do men, or any living being, belong in combat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1monster (Reply #21)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 05:40 PM

51. Agreed, but then

 

if we sent all the teabagger Chickenhawk war pigs into a few furball firefights and let them experience seeing their buddies get their heads shot off, maybe they wouldn't be so eager to send other people's loved ones to war. But then relating to reality was never the Teabaggers' strong suit

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 12:51 PM

22. Ex wives

I have two ex wives I would not want to meet in combat. I'm good friends with both of them in real life. That's why I know how vicious they are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 12:55 PM

23. You read my mind.

Actually, I think any decision to go to war should be subject to a popular vote. Anyone who votes "Yes" is placed in a draft lottery. That includes members of the House and Senate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dairydog91 (Reply #23)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 01:31 PM

27. + infinity! If that had happened there would have been no Iraq or Afghanistan

because all those chicken hawk RWers would not have voted yes in that case.

If enough of them had signed up for the wars they did support under Bush there would have been no forced second, third, etc., tours of duty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 01:22 PM

24. Exactly right.

What are "we" celebrating--and why?

War is an obscenity. It is man--and woman--at their absolute, rock-bottom worst.

If the dead could return to whisper into the ears of the living--parents, wives, children, friends and lovers--the hard, soul-shivering truth of what, for many, their final pain-wracked, despairing moments on this planet were like--I think most of us would go mad from existential horror and guilt.

It is a truism that dying soldiers often call for their mothers. Now that chorus of the wailing, dying damned can be sounded in a higher, sweeter, more feminine key.

Progress?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cer7711 (Reply #24)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 02:25 PM

40. progress? yes I think so

Im in a rocket artillery unit for the national guard. Combat arms as they say. This is my 14th year in the army. Speaking only about my current battery, a female presence, in the long run, will be a really quite helpful. The current battery is overflowing with testosterone, ego and stupidity. I spent the first 12 years in Engineer Battalions. Things are a lot different in this artillery unit. Less discipline. Less professionalism. I had females in my squad back when I was an NCO in the reserves. No big deal. In the artillery unit, it shouldnt be a big deal either. A female can do 100% of the work we are tasked with. Moreover, we have a non combat 'forward support company' who have the cargo trucks and ammo trailers. They have females in that unit. So the loading of our pods...not a male dominated thing. Maybe shell artillery in a Paladin crew is different. I cant say.

In the long run, because we have been ordered to remove an arbitrary obstacle, based not whatsoever on performance or ability, we will have females in the unit. They will be good soldiers or they will not be. The 'rub' their presence causes any males...well Im here to tell you that those males arent professional enough to be in the army. The real professionals dont want them there. Sooner or later they will transfer out or leave altogether. good riddance. we dont have room for dead weight these days. The point Im trying to get at is that female presence in these units will eventually soften the uber testosterone, often conservative wing nut personalities that are in my army. If you are a professional soldier, you wont be subject to any disciplinary action for harassment, hazing or otherwise inappropriate comments or behavior. Those that arent professional will find themselves on the wrong end of army regulations and disciplinary actions. Sooner or later this will make the military a better representation of the american population. not such a bastion of conservatives and anti liberals.(most of them dont even know what any of this means, they just know liberals are fairies, and conservatives are 'tough') Im all for that.

anecdote: my armory is in a rural spot, so the local recruiter has an office there. Last year a female was there to see him during our training weekend. She walked out to the smoking area. The males I was standing with just could not help themselves. I could see the thoughts and comments forming about her less then feminine appearance and dress. Before any of them could say something stupid I said "you all need to bite your tongues". They looked at me knowing I knew what they were thinking. Im just a specialist right now, but had more professionalism and more respect than two of the sergeants in that group.

I am a structural ironworker by trade. All testosterone, all the time. NOBODY is more manly than an ironworker! (except when they meet sgt pasto, then they get all feelings hurt). Dont get me wrong, good guys and hard workers. But jesus H christ the conversations at break and lunch are always the same. Cars. trucks. right wing talking points. old stories trying to impress us that they are more badass than anyone. One upsmanship. sometimes I want to hit myself on the head with a 4 pound hammer and end my misery. Same thing in my artillery battery. So the prospect of having a female to talk to on details or during work assignments sounds as good to me as being paroled.

speaking from the inside - long career in the army. I was in one of the first gender integrated army basic training units in 1995. My wife was a soldier. I have two daughters. Ive been in non combat and now in combat units. I served the Iraq war. I saw female MPs kick the shit out of bad guys and outperform most males. Myself included. From that perspective, yeah. this is progress. Maybe with enough progress, the cynical rosy colored comments "nobody should go to war" (which is a thinly veiled backhanded sexist remark too) might happen. Wouldnt that be nice. I promise you that I want peaceful resolutions to things more than you do. Its my neck on the line. But reality...mankind fights. alot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pasto76 (Reply #40)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 05:25 PM

50. Thank You for Joining the Discussion

Last edited Sun Jan 27, 2013, 01:00 AM - Edit history (2)

Excellent comments, cogently made.

I was in the Marine Corps, not the Army, but boy-oh-boy can I relate to your "having a female to talk to on details or during work assignments sounds as good to me as being paroled." Heh! Depends on the woman though, eh? I mean to say that the quality of the interaction and discussion will be entirely dependent on any one woman's personality, background and outlook. To argue otherwise is, as you put it: "a thinly-veiled backhanded sexist remark"--only in reverse.

For a different take on the prospect of women serving alongside men in infantry combat roles, I hope you'll consider the experience of http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thoughtlife/2013/01/women-should-not-be-in-combat-says-a-female-marine-captain/. She lived it. And paid the price. And had the guts to write as honestly, directly and openly as she could about the reality of her service. Her religious reasoning aside (you may not share her beliefs or faith) I think the most powerful--and pertinent--aspect of her testimony is the guilt she feels at having put male Marines in danger because she simply could not keep up, physically, in the way that they could.

We may feel strongly one way or another about this issue (to be honest I'm very conflicted and uneasy about women serving in infantry combat roles) but in the interests of intellectual rigor and honesty (not group-think and ideological purity, left- or right-wing) I hope we'll watch and assess carefully as this experiment plays out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cer7711 (Reply #50)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 03:10 AM

62. Women who "can't keep up" won't be allowed into combat specialties.

There are no plans to lower standards to accommodate female service personnel.

The only thing that is happening with this change is that what has been happening already -- women in, de facto, combat--will be recognized as such. Those who can "keep up" and want to specialize in combat arms are no longer prevented by law from following that skillset.

The rocket that took off Tammy Duckworth's legs didn't spare her because she wasn't certified to be "in combat" after all.

The front lines can be anywhere, now. Combat "restriction" is a paradigm whose time has passed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #62)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 03:21 AM

63. +100

Some keep raising the notion that women who can't cut it will endanger the lives of their male infantry comrades. Yet, by definition, the only women who will be accepted entry into those kinds of jobs are women who have proved that they CAN cut it. The 'failure' argument is bogus on its face.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinboy3niner (Reply #63)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 04:29 AM

67. Testimony of Female Marine Corps Captain Katie Petronio, A+++ Athlete & Marine

pinboy3niner: Men and women are tested according to two very DIFFERENT physical fitness standards in the Marine Corps. As to what this means in terms of outcomes on the battlefield:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thoughtlife/2013/01/women-should-not-be-in-combat-says-a-female-marine-captain/

(Quoting from the article referenced above): But donít take my word for it; consider the testimony of a captain in the Marine Corps, a woman named Katie Petronio. Petronio is a graduate of my alma mater, Bowdoin College. She was the captain of the nationally ranked womenís hockey team during her college years; after them, she placed fourth in her class in Officer Candidates School.

Think about this:

■When she entered the military, Petronio was ardently for women in combat
■She could bench almost 150 pounds (very impressive)
■She scored a 292 out of 300 on the Marine physical fitness test (truly a top-notch athlete)
■She was in the top 20% of performers in Basic Training

Weíre dealing here with a high-performer, an achiever, and a woman in peak shape. So what happened when she went to Afghanistan? Was she fine? Did she perform as well as she expected?

Sadly, her body essentially buckled. She became a different person, physically. Read this, all of it, for some perspective (itís honestly hard to read if you care about the well-being of women):


to the excessive amount of time I spent in full combat load, I was diagnosed with a severe case of restless leg syndrome. My spine had compressed on nerves in my lower back causing neuropathy which compounded the symptoms of restless leg syndrome. While this injury has certainly not been enjoyable, Iraq was a pleasant experience compared to the experiences I endured during my deployment to Afghanistan. At the beginning of my tour in Helmand Province, I was physically capable of conducting combat operations for weeks at a time, remaining in my gear for days if necessary and averaging 16-hour days of engineering operations in the heart of Sangin, one of the most kinetic and challenging AOs in the country. There were numerous occasions where I was sent to a grid coordinate and told to build a PB from the ground up, serving not only as the mission commander but also the base commander until the occupants (infantry units) arrived 5 days later. In most of these situations, I had a sergeant as my assistant commander, and the remainder of my platoon consisted of young, motivated NCOs. I was the senior Marine making the final decisions on construction concerns, along with 24-hour base defense and leading 30 Marines at any given time. The physical strain of enduring combat operations and the stress of being responsible for the lives and well-being of such a young group in an extremely kinetic environment were compounded by lack of sleep, which ultimately took a physical toll on my body that I couldnít have foreseen.

By the fifth month into the deployment, I had muscle atrophy in my thighs that was causing me to constantly trip and my legs to buckle with the slightest grade change. My agility during firefights and mobility on and off vehicles and perimeter walls was seriously hindering my response time and overall capability. It was evident that stress and muscular deterioration was affecting everyone regardless of gender; however, the rate of my deterioration was noticeably faster than that of male Marines and further compounded by gender-specific medical conditions. At the end of the 7-month deployment, and the construction of 18 PBs later, I had lost 17 pounds and was diagnosed with polycystic ovarian syndrome (which personally resulted in infertility, but is not a genetic trend in my family), which was brought on by the chemical and physical changes endured during deployment. Regardless of my deteriorating physical stature, I was extremely successful during both of my combat tours, serving beside my infantry brethren and gaining the respect of every unit I supported. Regardless, I can say with 100 percent assurance that despite my accomplishments, there is no way I could endure the physical demands of the infantrymen whom I worked beside as their combat load and constant deployment cycle would leave me facing medical separation long before the option of retirement. I understand that everyone is affected differently; however, I am confident that should the Marine Corps attempt to fully integrate women into the infantry, we as an institution are going to experience a colossal increase in crippling and career-ending medical conditions for females.
Is every woman in combat going to experience this? No. But was Petronio a top athlete, unusually well prepared for combat (scoring nearly perfectly on the overall fitness exam)? Absolutely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cer7711 (Reply #67)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 04:35 AM

69. Other military women have different views

I don't think this issue will be decided anecdotally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinboy3niner (Reply #69)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 05:38 AM

72. That's A Very Good Point! And Fairly Made.

I hope we hear from a number of active-duty men and women on this issue.

I wish we, together, could end all war and other pointless violence tomorrow.

But since we can't, we debate and discuss sad side issues like this.

:::sigh:::

I'm going to tip-toe out of this minefield now after having tossed in my two-cents.

Be well, pinboy3niner! All who disagree need not be bitter enemies, eh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinboy3niner (Reply #63)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 06:28 AM

74. I notice the most vociferous objections are coming from religious websites.

Guess they would prefer to keep women subservient. Kind of hard to quote the good book about those women deferring to their men when they're holding a rocket launcher!

This same argument came up when the Women In Ships initiative was fired up. Female Sailors didn't get to USN vessels in any numbers until the late eighties and onward, and the same excuses were used-- but there has been no degradation of operational capability--in fact, the atmosphere is enhanced by a mixed gender environment.

Some people just don't like change. They resent it, they fear it. I'm the first person to exclaim with surprise when I see what new things the Services have come up with (crazy uniforms being the most obvious) but hey, time marches on. The traditions of our experiences aren't the traditions for the present-day service personnel. Also, the people who are frantic about "strength" (Ooooh Noooo Mister Bill--poor little Susie won't be able to haul that gear!!!) should probably have a look at what the Natick Labs are working on--an exoskeleton that will enable the smallest, weakest person to damn near crush a Volkswagen (hell, I could use one of those around the house). As it is, an infantryman in the forties, fifties and sixties, carrying an equivalent amount of gear, had to haul way more weight than nowadays--those CRats alone weighed a ton--the MREs are like air. And the helmets--the old steel pot was much heavier compared to the composite materials of the modern headgear.

Applying old paradigms to new situations always results in cognitive dissonance. People thought the world would end when the Armed Forces were integrated, too. Good thing Truman said "screw it" and went ahead anyway!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #62)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 03:55 AM

65. Male & Female Marines Are Tested Against Two Completely Different Physical Fitness Standards

Tammy Duckworth was an army helicopter pilot, not infantry. The infantry (or "grunts", in USMC parlance) is a whole different kettle of fish.

You are correct that the front lines can be anywhere, now. And I certainly don't doubt that women can be effective, courageous, and accomplished fighters. The history of warfare is replete with examples. History is also very clear that women are not thrown into combat, en masse, until and unless a society is in extremis.

But as to your point "there are no plans to lower standards to accommodate female service personnel", well . . .

https://basix.basixwellness.com/Marine_Corps_Standards

If you examine these charts you will understand something very quickly: Men and women, from the moment they enter Marine Corps boot camp, are judged according to two very different physical fitness standards. Women are assessed, rated and promoted against a lower physical-fitness standard from the day they get off the bus to the moment they DD-214 out of the service.

Example: Men have to run harder, faster, than women to score the same number of physical fitness points in the aerobic conditioning category. Where men have to complete 20 pull-ups in under two minutes to get the maximum score allotted for upper-body strength, women have to do a flexed-arm hang. And trust me, the difference between trying to complete 20 full pull-ups in under 2 minutes and merely hanging there for the duration of the test is . . . well, the difference between being a man and a woman.

The reason these tests are different for men and women is because (if you'll pardon the obvious tautology) men and women are built very differently, morphologically-speaking. And it would be blatantly unfair to women to test them against the male physical fitness standard, as most women--even the strongest--would not pass with anything but mediocre-to-poor marks.

Are we about to let women compete alongside and contend against men in the NFL? Boxing? Wrestling? Basketball? Judo? Golf?

If we recognize that this would be unfair to both genders, for very different reasons, why in god's name would we pretend that--HEY PRESTO!--women are suddenly the physical equals of men in that most brutal, numbing and savage of human endeavors: combat?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cer7711 (Reply #65)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 04:23 AM

66. They are not "completely different"--they are similar and account for biological differences.

These biological differences are used to determine what the "average" man or woman can accomplish using/applying the test elements.

Men carry less fat around their behinds, for example, and have more upper body strength. I'll wager if you strapped a twenty five pound bag of potatoes to a man's ass, and five pounds to his chest, he'd have trouble with those pull ups, even with the increased upper body strength.

More to the point, PT tests are required to be passed by EVERYONE--doesn't matter if you're filing personnel records, repairing a computer, wrench bending in the motor pool or on the flight line, or toting that weapon in a combat environment.

The PT test is NOT a "gatekeeper" exam for entry into combat arms. It's a gatekeeper exam for entry into the Corps and continued service in the Corps.

All services have PT tests. They're designed to ensure that personnel meet standards set by each Service's Chief. If you seriously think, though, that the standard applied to the average schmuck, regardless of gender, in the Navy, for example, is the same as the physical standard expected of a Navy SEAL, you're not looking at the full picture.

For this reason, your analogy is a fail. The implementation period will be used to determine if additional qualification standards need to be applied to combat specialities. If they're needed they will be crafted, tested and implemented.

Years ago, whiners complained that women couldn't be postal clerks because the mail bags were TOO HEAVY, and that MEN would have to come and lift the bags for the helpless little women. Because of this, any woman who was slotted into a military US mail handling position was required to pass an additional test at the Armed Forces Entrance/Examining Station (later Military Entrance Processing Station) that consisted of having to lift fifty pounds over their heads several times. That nipped that shit in the bud, and there was no more griping about women in the postal ranks.

I found, during my decades in service, that mixed gender units performed far better than single sex ones. There aren't many obstacles that can't be overcome if someone is motivated and qualified. And only qualified personnel--of either gender--will be slotted into these combat positions.

Not all men are Rambos, you know. In fact, quite a few aren't. I know more than a few women who could kick the living shit out of many men in their units.

I suggest you stop worrying about this decision by DOD and the Service Chiefs. They know what they're doing. Your concerns about "unfairness" are entirely unfounded. This is a smart move, and LONG overdue.

The vestigial chauvinists will just have to shrivel up and fall away--there's no place for them in the uniformed services anymore. Adapt or die.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #66)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 05:31 AM

71. Good Response!

Let's take those point-by-point:
_________________________
These biological differences are used to determine what the "average" man or woman can accomplish using/applying the test elements.

Men carry less fat around their behinds, for example, and have more upper body strength. I'll wager if you strapped a twenty five pound bag of potatoes to a man's ass, and five pounds to his chest, he'd have trouble with those pull ups, even with the increased upper body strength.
.....................................
REPLY: Of course we would. But we don't. You've made the point for me.
.....................................

More to the point, PT tests are required to be passed by EVERYONE--doesn't matter if you're filing personnel records, repairing a computer, wrench bending in the motor pool or on the flight line, or toting that weapon in a combat environment.

The PT test is NOT a "gatekeeper" exam for entry into combat arms. It's a gatekeeper exam for entry into the Corps and continued service in the Corps.

All services have PT tests. They're designed to ensure that personnel meet standards set by each Service's Chief. If you seriously think, though, that the standard applied to the average schmuck, regardless of gender, in the Navy, for example, is the same as the physical standard expected of a Navy SEAL, you're not looking at the full picture.
.....................................

REPLY: I don't think any such thing; never asserted any such thing. I'm simply pointing out here something that seems to make you wild with fury: the fact that the physical fitness test for active duty personnel is qualitatively different for men and women.
.......................................

For this reason, your analogy is a fail.
.......................................

REPLY: I would argue that it is your logic that has failed here. You attempt to arm-wave away the differences in the PT tests and standards, use emotional language ("schmuck" instead of "person"), and then . . .
.............................................

The implementation period will be used to determine if additional qualification standards need to be applied to combat specialties. If they're needed they will be crafted, tested and implemented.
.......................................
REPLY: Translation: "If this doesn't work out for combat arms we'll assess what needs to change and implement those changes after careful consideration." We have found our point of agreement.
........................................

Years ago, whiners complained that women couldn't be postal clerks because the mail bags were TOO HEAVY, and that MEN would have to come and lift the bags for the helpless little women. Because of this, any woman who was slotted into a military US mail handling position was required to pass an additional test at the Armed Forces Entrance/Examining Station (later Military Entrance Processing Station) that consisted of having to lift fifty pounds over their heads several times. That nipped that shit in the bud, and there was no more griping about women in the postal ranks.
..........................................

REPLY: Again, you make my point for me. When you strip the heavy sarcasm from that paragraph we're left in complete agreement with one another once again: A woman should be accorded the full respect, full pay and full, fair consideration for promotion and recognition her male counterparts in mail-bag toting would be accorded, since she passed the exact same physical standard!

But combat isn't mail-bag toting.

And alleging that any male who confesses to conflicted/mixed feelings over women routinely fighting and dying alongside men in infantry combat = hateful, retrograde, idiotic sexism is unfair and unworthy of your argument and intelligence.
...............................................

I found, during my decades in service, that mixed gender units performed far better than single sex ones.
................................................

REPLY: Now there's a sweeping generalization and assertion if I ever heard one! What kind of "units" are we talking about? If, in your experience, "mixed gender units performed far better than single sex ones" what proof of this assertion do you offer? Exactly how and in what ways did they "perform better"? As the math teachers say: show your work. What am I--and others--to make of the truly hideous, outrageous and upsetting statistics coming out about the high incidences of rape and physical abuse of women in the service? (PLEASE do not insult my intelligence or capacity for moral judgment by telling me "it's a male problem"; I get that and agree with you in advance. I truly do.) What I am asking is: How confident are you that your personal experience (the microcosm) reflects the macrocosm?
...............................................


There aren't many obstacles that can't be overcome if someone is motivated and qualified.
...............................................

REPLY: Full agreement--again--here.
................................................

And only qualified personnel--of either gender--will be slotted into these combat positions.

Not all men are Rambos, you know. In fact, quite a few aren't.
..................................................

REPLY: I'm not! Heh! I'm far from the "lean-and-mean, green killing machine" I was when I enlisted in the Marine Corps at 17. Now I'm a bookish, bespectacled, pudgy diabetic pushing 50 with a failing heart who has lived long enough to recognize that war is an obscenity and should only ever be tolerated/endured as a last-resort/necessary evil, not an idiotic bloodsport for sociopathic yahoos. But I do wince at the thought of women being thrown into the meatgrinder of infantry combat alongside men. And if we won't tolerate or socially sanction hard physical contact between men and women in the NFL . . .
..................................................


I know more than a few women who could kick the living shit out of many men in their units.
..................................................

REPLY: Bluntly: And I knew quite a few men who could kick the living shit out of every woman in their unit. You're arguing with a straw man here: I never said Woody Allen could defeat Rambo-lina in hand-to-hand combat. But then we wouldn't find Woody Allen in Force Recon, the Navy Seals or Special Forces, would we?
.................................................

I suggest you stop worrying about this decision by DOD and the Service Chiefs. They know what they're doing. Your concerns about "unfairness" are entirely unfounded. This is a smart move, and LONG overdue.
...................................................

REPLY: And I suggest you stop telling informed, decent, intelligent and morally-compassionate citizens--like yourself--to refrain from engaging in public dialogue on hot-button issues simply because they have a different opinion than you do.
...................................................

The vestigial chauvinists will just have to shrivel up and fall away--there's no place for them in the uniformed services anymore. Adapt or die.
...................................................

REPLY: "I am woman, hear me roar . . ." It's a little hard over the sound of the artillery, assault rifles and exploding grenades. But I do hear you, indeed I do MADem, and I very much honor and respect your desire to die here in the mud and blood alongside me and my fellow male Marines--who had to pass a tougher, more physically-demanding physical fitness test than you did to be accorded the same number of points for promotion and advancement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cer7711 (Reply #71)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 06:04 AM

73. Oh, please, get over yourself.

"I am woman, hear me roar?"

Listen to yourself. I hear you roar from here! Grrr! Grrr! Classic Internet Tough Guy, that rant!

Your anger and disappointment notwithstanding, too bad if you don't like this change--it's here. It's happening. So, instead of using code words like "fury" (none of that here) when I state the obvious--that the test will not be used for what you seem to think it will be used for--why don't you just move with the times and stop trying to protect those "poor helpless women" with an outdated and rather pathetic Father Knows Best attitude.

I don't have my records of the many hundreds of personnel I supervised down the years, but I do know that I had fewer disciplinary problems when leading mixed units, better morale, better esprit de corps, and less agita in mission accomplishment. Sorry I can't give you data, I wasn't expecting a test from the likes of you. You'll just have to take my word for it. If I were re-activated, I would prefer a mixed gender assignment.

Here's the bottom line--you can snark all you want. You can pout; you can get all "artillary/assault rifles/exploding grenades" (even though those WW2 scenes aren't the paradigm for modern warfare) and you can create ideas in your head about who you think I am to your heart's content. You're not getting your way. The angrier you get, the more you insist that you had it tougher, the less anyone will care. The ship has sailed without you. And there's not a damn thing you can do about it.

And you're not "dying in the mud" there, Rambo--you're sitting on your ass in front of a computer and I'll wager your biggest problem with blood might be a bloody nose due to dry weather. Since I'm happily retired from uniformed service and collecting my check every month, I'm not dying in any mud either--and have no intention of so doing--I've done my turn in the barrel and the only mud I have to deal with is in the yard at springtime.

Why don't you forward that rant to Tammy Duckworth?

If you dare.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #73)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 03:11 PM

86. Talking With You Is Like Talking With You

Last edited Sun Jan 27, 2013, 10:20 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm angry? What makes you think I'm angry?

How many times have I told you, during the course of this short discussion, that you and I are in complete agreement on many, many aspects of this issue? I have called you intelligent. I have tried my best to use humor, civil language and a tone of complete and utter candor. You respond with . . . well, what you respond with.

1.) I am not "angry and disappointed"--those are your words. Mine were "uneasy and conflicted".

2.) I'm a classic internet tough guy?! Let's review, shall we? When you wrote: "Not all men are Rambos, you know. In fact, quite a few aren't," I responded with, "I'm not! Heh! I'm far from the "lean-and-mean, green killing machine" I was when I enlisted in the Marine Corps at 17. Now I'm a bookish, bespectacled, pudgy diabetic pushing 50 with a failing heart who has lived long enough to recognize that war is an obscenity and should only ever be tolerated/endured as a last-resort/necessary evil, not an idiotic bloodsport for sociopathic yahoos. But I do wince at the thought of women being thrown into the meatgrinder of infantry combat alongside men. And if we won't tolerate or socially sanction hard physical contact between men and women in the NFL . . . "

Yep, "classic internet tough guy" stuff; that self-effacing, somewhat embarassing admission of physical fraility and failing health!

But my mind still works. And my heart is still engaged in the issues. (Still waiting for an answer to the above, by the way. The sports question. I've asked you twice and you've refused to answer. Because to answer is to concede the point, yes? And you're not in the business of conceding points or allowing for any expression of doubt, are you MADem? Not when you have righteous fury and angry indignation and a complete, utter unwillingness to fairly and civilly debate an issue with someone who is on your freaking side but disagrees with you within the very narrow, limited, and defined issue of women serving in the infantry. And by "women serving in the infantry" I do not mean toting mail bags around in a building, serving aboard ships, flying helicopters and jets, driving tanks and IFVs or firing artillery. What you mistake as snark and anger is simply my attempt to communicate honestly and clearly with you.)

3.) Now as to "snark" and "pouting"--Good grief, go back and read these missives from start to finish! In every instance I have sought to communicate with you as directly, fairly and honestly as possible. I called you no names. I never impugned your motives. I engaged in no "armchair psychologizing" of your mind or spirit and I certainly emphasized, whenever I could, points of mutual agreement. You, on the other hand . . . Full-on attack mode from word one: fangs barred, venom flying. Is this how you engage in cogent, thoughtful debate? Is this your idea of rhetorical victory: simply SHOUT YOUR OPPONENT DOWN and SAY BAD THINGS ABOUT THEM until they whimper, roll over and die? We'll need a new word for that debating tactic: "MADem-esque". (Okay, that was snark.)

4.) As to your last point: of course we're both sitting in front of our computers as we engage in this--what would you call it? It's not really a debate, because I agree with you on many of the substantive issues surrounding this one carefully circumscribed and narrowly-defined sub-sub issue. You keep trying to paint me as some kind of woman-hating, knuckle-dragging chauvinist when in point of fact I stated that women deserve "full respect, full pay and full, fair consideration for promotion and recognition" that their male counterparts receive for doing the exact same jobs, according to the exact same standards. A real Archie Bunker-type I is! In your angry, politically-correct head.

5.) Why would I forward your rants to Tammy Duckworth?! I'd hate to see you embarass yourself in front of that hard-charging, hard-fighting Democratic woman who did us all a great favor by defeating Republican Joe Walsh and replacing him in Congress.

The final word is yours.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cer7711 (Reply #86)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 04:22 PM

88. Forward YOUR rant to Tammy Duckworth, along with your

"fury" and "woman hear me roar" nonsense. "Fangs bared? Venom flying?" Listen to yourself. CLASSIC "internet tough guy."

You're so worried about women not being able to do the "infantry" job but apparently you didn't hear or process that no woman will be accessed into combat ranks if they can't do the job--if you watched the presser, you heard that from both Panetta and Dempsey.

You know, three out of four applicants to the Armed Services (regardless of gender) can't "do the job." That's why they aren't accessed.

Bottom line--if an individual can do the job, in the infantry, in the cockpit, in the submarine, they should be permitted to do the job. Gender is not a barrier. And you should be "wincing" just as much when our sons and brothers get thrown into that meatgrinder -- anything else is pure sexism.

You're getting mad at me for noticing that you're playing a chauvinist game, here, while you double down with chauvinist invective.

I'm not "painting" you with anything--your very own words are doing the painting for you. You're also making some amusing assumptions, but I'll let you roll on with them.

When we put women in ships, I heard this same sort of horseshit. I can smell it a mile away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to 4Q2u2 (Reply #78)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 12:34 PM

85. You need to check again. And not use a right wing RAG with the word "hints" in the headline as

your "proof."

I watched Secretary Panetta and General Dempsey make the announcement. There was no "hinting," in fact, there was a very plainspoken statement that if the female service personnel couldn't do the job, they wouldn't GET the job--so take that Rev. Moon bullshit spinning and stow it.

You should know better than to drag that piece of shit source in here--it is not credible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #85)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 07:50 PM

93. Yes kill the messenger

"What we've done, though, is by eliminating the direct combat exclusion provision, the burden used to be on -- the burden used to be that we would say, why should a woman serve in a particular specialty? Now it's, why shouldn't a woman serve in a particular specialty?"

"And the services will now have the opportunity to take a -- with that now as the reverse paradigm -- to come back over time and with careful analysis and making sure we got the standards right to the secretary in order to -- if we're going to keep one closed, they have to explain why, and I think there will be the right amount of scrutiny on that."

What if the service then States that female candidates are not physically fit enough to the percentages brass was looking for. Will that be acceptable or will the standards change. Since the burden has shifted in reverse and you have served you know what will happen if the brass do not get their way. You also know Senior Military Officers today could care less about their junior troops.

Leading up the the Iraq War Rummy polled The Army on troop levels for invasion and occupation. He was told 385,000. That General was fired until The Army came back with 185,000, the numbers Rummy was looking for. A lot of good troops died because of Generals bending the numbers to please their civilian masters. I know civilians have the final word but brass has the moral duty to protect The Army of the American People. It is not the Army of DC politicians.

Woman that make the grade that is in effect now, good on them and God Bless. I hope they have a wonderful fulfilling career and get to lead fine young Americans as I did. Simply put the true treasure of the American people. Lowering standards for anyone never made the Service better. You know that and keeping the brass and politicians honest is our duty.

I never understood why you feel the need to insult people who disagree with you. Is that a stradegy to win and influence people so they are compelled to see only your side?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4Q2u2 (Reply #93)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 11:30 PM

94. You need to read the TOS. The Moonie Times is NOT a "messenger"--it's a propaganda rag.

And if telling you that is insulting you, you've got some thin skin.

Your "concern" is noted. I am glad you're not running the show at DOD.

FWIW, Rummy didn't "poll the Army." Your facts, once again, are in error.

Rick Shinseki testified to that number at a Congressional hearing, and for his trouble, he was run out of town on a rail. The senior Army officer on active duty couldn't get anyone of note from that nightmare of a GOP administration to even show up at his retirement ceremony to pin a medal on him, pat him on the head and say thanks, pal, for your hard work and long career. Good thing Obama recognized his talents--that's why he's running the VA now. And who was his deputy before she ran for Congress? Tammy Duckworth.

If a person can do the job, gender should not be a barrier. Nor should orientation or color or ethnicity. That's EQUALITY. It's the wave of the future, so get used to it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #94)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 09:17 AM

100. I never said Woman Do Not Belong

in the newly opened Military Roles. I stated that if they could pass the standards that are used to qualify the rest of the service then Good Luck to them. I just did not want the standards to be watered down so politicians can brag about how great they are. Without having to face any consequences. Keeping the standards that are there now will pretty much guarantee outstanding woman, lowering the standard will also let less than desirable men into the ranks.

All the troops that I led loved serving under me. I had the highest promotion stats in the Battalion, Gender neutral at that. All were treated fair, all were given equal opportunity to succeed or fail. If they did fail, they were all given the extra needed attention and training to succeed. I also expected the highest standards in the Battalion and instilled these as self regulating core aspects of each and every individual. So maybe I should be in the DOD running things. I know for one thing, I would not Fuck our troops over and sell them out for ribbons, glory, or higher office.

You knew full well that I was just using the Shinseki point as anecdotal to show how Civilian leadership will bend numbers to fit their agenda. Ignoring recommendations from the Military, even if the consequences are at the cost of lives. You also know that this will be done and have seen it done. I also believe that Shinseki did not invite any of Shrub's Admin to his retirement. I do not blame him though, I would not want those asses at my retirement either. Not that they would have shown for me.

My question about insulting people was not based on what you think of the WT, but earlier statements to other posters. There seems to be an absolutism in your posts and that there will never be any room for debate if you do not like what some one else has to say. Just wondering why? Can not disagreement be Civil? Are you always right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4Q2u2 (Reply #100)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 04:31 PM

101. Then you have nothing to worry about.

No one is going to lower standards to play with numbers--hell, there's a drawdown going on. What you are going to see in the years ahead is a hyperactive adherence to regulations, of the sort that makes a warfighter exasperated. PT tests will be conducted methodically; there will be no fudging or gundecking of measurements or results; uniform inspections will increase; promotion standards will become much more difficult; drug tests will increase; minor infractions will become career-ending gaffes. There will be an exodus of personnel as the forces draw down and balance out.

I am not an "absolutist," I simply don't care for sexism or any other kind of -isms, and when the DOD leadership bothers to take the time to be straightforward and say, very clearly, that they aren't going to lower standards, to only be met here by a scant few on a supposedly progressive website insisting that the opposite will happen, well, my military mind goes to motive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #101)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 08:48 AM

104. You are Right

You are right about the drawdown, it will be a blood bath. The Navy and Marine Corps just instituted random BAC tests. I was beginning my tour in the 90's when we had that drawdown and it was vicious and people got screwed big time. I always hated seeing cost cutting placed on the backs of the troops when one obsolete usless weapons system would cover that short fall and them some.

I do not have the same faith as you do in the DOD being straitforward.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 01:26 PM

25. Killing people for the bosses isn't "liberation".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #25)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 02:32 PM

41. +100000000000000000000000000000... n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 01:27 PM

26. I don't like seeing American women getting shot or killed!

Therefore America must export all their women to Canada.

Does anyone really need to run the numbers to see where more women get killed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 01:34 PM

28. Exactly. K&R

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 01:36 PM

29. As a woman who served

I say it's about time. No we should not have wars, but better more women able to advance into leadership positions we might be able to get something done about the harassment and rape culture. If the soldiers know they can be fragged when they rape, it might change. Harsh I know, but..... Also, get the neocon religious nuts out of the military who already believe that women should be second class to men.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 01:46 PM

31. THANK YOU!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 01:46 PM

33. Ya almost got me.

Indeed, no one belongs in combat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chorophyll (Reply #33)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 12:09 PM

83. That is why drones are being used more and more in killing the "enemy" in their homes.

 

Notice the "their" there. What are we doing there in the first place? We are in their country. They were never in ours. The war on terror is designed to be self perpetuating. Like the war on drugs. The war on poverty had to be stopped because were starting to win that one.

Anyway, the people we are killing have every much a right to live in their own country, without being killed by invaders, as we Americans do in our own country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 02:05 PM

35. Agreed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 02:07 PM

36. I think it's sad

that women "winning" the right to kill people in war,too, is considered progress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 02:21 PM

38. With that title...

are you TRYING to get my blood pressure up?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 02:23 PM

39. OK, I gotta say . . .

OK, I gotta say it. There's nobody who belongs in combat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 02:38 PM

42. This "progress" is a setback for humanity. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 03:02 PM

43. Exactly what I was gonna say. Thanks from an ex-Army wife

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 03:04 PM

44. I was ready to argue...

 

And you got me on a technicality!

A true and accurate technicality if I may add.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 03:05 PM

45. Yep.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 03:35 PM

46. Build us a Thunderdome!

Let the leaders/bankers fight it out amongst themselves, and we can all watch, instead of the other way around. If the bargaining table fails, let them duke it out themselves.

The world is ass backwards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 04:00 PM

48. My thoughts exactly. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 04:33 PM

49. So true Jackpine yet now the Repukes & NRA ironically want everyone to be armed w/assault guns!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 05:45 PM

52. Thank You

Thank you from another CIB'er. 11b20.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 05:51 PM

53. Best post I've read all day!

Thanks, JR.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 05:53 PM

54. I always love your posts.

No one belongs in a war. It is long past time for humankind to grow up and learn to negotiate and problem solve together. Our Earth and our species have too many issues we need to tackle. The incredible wastefulness and destruction of war needs to end.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 08:56 PM

56. I have a purple heart for my fathers life.

He never knew me, nor I him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 09:24 PM

57. Robot on robot warfare! That's the way to go.

Because as humans beings we do love senseless violence. We don't have to be in it to enjoy it, though. It's really all about the entertainment value.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tclambert (Reply #57)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 04:40 PM

91. Well, there's HULC--that's not quite "robot"--more like robot - human. It's in the biometric stage

of testing now. They've been working this implementation for at least twenty years--I'm amazed at this latest iteration, I think they're real close:

http://www.gizmag.com/hulc-biomechanical-testing/19093/




The HULC being tested is an un-tethered, battery-powered, hydraulic-actuated anthropomorphic exoskeleton designed to give the wearer the ability to carry loads of up to 200 lb (90.7 kg) for up to 12.4 miles (20 km) on a single battery charge over all manner of terrain. Controlled by an onboard micro-computer that ensures the exoskeleton moves in concert with the operator, the unit's design allows for deep squats, crawls and upper-body lifting with minimal human exertion.

"Our latest generation of the HULC design provides unmatched flexibility, strength and endurance," said Jim Ni, HULC program manager at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control. "It will enable soldiers to do things they cannot do today, while helping to protect them from musculoskeletal injuries."

According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, the most prevalent service-connected disabilities stem from musculoskeletal injuries.

If the biomechanical evaluations prove successful, the ruggedized HULC system will then undergo field-testing in simulated operational environments.



The wiki article on this item has a lot of good detail and a better pic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Universal_Load_Carrier

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 11:23 PM

59. Swords into Plowshares...Nation Building at Home. Everyone else will be OK.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 12:01 AM

60. Hear, hear. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 03:22 AM

64. Women vets are at a higher risk of birth defects and stillbirths -

than non-veterans or even than the offspring of male veterans, more than double the latter. This is a special risk to their children that should be assessed and likely sending them into combat will make this go even higher. It's an inconvenient truth that women are the carriers of eggs -- and contaminating them is not a good idea. It's one thing to risk your own life, quite another the lives of your future children yet to be born. I suspect if most young women understood how high these risks are they might choose not to serve. Most men might think twice, too, if they knew that their sperm are also affected, though not at as high rates as the women.

There are other special issues for women too. I've heard that women who sat on crates of depleted uranium in vehicles came home with cancer and had to have their reproductive organs removed at very young ages - some still in their teens.

Also 1 in 3 military women are sexually assaulted (that means rape, not harassment). How much worse will this get in combat zones?

I have extremely mixed feelings about women in Congress, but DEFINITELY feel that if it's done, it must only be voluntary. No future mother should ever be made to serve in combat if a draft is ever reinstated in the U.S. It's bad for fathers too but statistically the odds are way higher of having a severely deformed baby if it's the mother who is exposed to toxins, even years before she gets pregnant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberty Belle (Reply #64)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 04:34 AM

68. You do know that sperm can be damaged and mutated by exposure to toxins, too?

Agent Orange did a real number on a lot of guys.

And, FYI....Many women service personnel are married to ... male service personnel!

Dual service couples are quite common--and could account for some of these issues.

I think you'll probably want to produce a link regarding the teenagers sitting on DU crates. I'm just not feeling that anecdote as delivered.

I think you don't quite "get" that women are already serving in "combat zones." They just aren't serving in "combat specialties" even though they are often doing the very same work and not getting credited for it.

Do you think Tammy Duckworth was at a garden party when she got her legs shot off? She was IN COMBAT.

If you have "extremely mixed feelings about women in Congress" you really need to get up to speed. Was that a Freudian slip, perchance?

Finally, you DO realize that our military has been an ALL VOLUNTEER FORCE since the seventies?

If the draft is reinstituted, though, no one will get a pass, and that is how it should be. Women deserve to be treated as equals in this nation, and equality means equality in responsibility. This is long overdue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #68)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 01:49 AM

98. The story about the young women sitting on DU crates was told to me by a friend who died.

She was a veteran, and she died of colon cancer after years of failing to get a diagnosis until it was too late; her bowel exploded during surgery and she was gone.

I meant to say combat, not Congress. We need MANY more women in the House and Senate!

Yes I know we are a volunteer mlitary force, of course, but that could change someday if we keep having these endless wars.

you are accurate that males' sperm can be affected by Agent Orange and other chemicals. But the statistical rate of deformed offspring is much, much higher in women vets.

Dual vet families no doubt does increase the risk, and yes, women are already in dangerous positions over there.

I stand by my statement that I do not believe women should be forced into combat, though, if they don't wish to go because if we send all of our young men and women to the front lines and contaminate them all in some future draft, that's just wrong. Others may disagree, but I believe that quite firmly.

The best recourse, of course, is not to get into so many wars and not to use inhumane weapons that punish not only our enemies, but our own soldiers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberty Belle (Reply #98)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 04:52 PM

102. If you're in the service, in wartime, you can be "forced into combat" even if your job is

in the rear with the gear, stacking skivvies.

There are no "combat zones" anymore.

If we want an Equal Rights Amendment, that affords equality to all citizens, notwithstanding their gender, then this is a necessary step. Equal Rights, Equal Responsibilities.

I do agree that war should be a last resort, to be only considered when diplomacy has failed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberty Belle (Reply #64)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 10:53 AM

81. What does this mean? "I have extremely mixed feelings about women in Congress"?????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #81)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 01:51 AM

99. A mistype - I meant to say combat. I've worked for a woman running for Congress before,

as a paid staffer, and have voted for our women Senators too. If we had more women in high offices, this country would not be in quite such a mess most likely. It's the men with all that testosterone starting all these wars!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 05:26 AM

70. Yep, I wholly concur

When was the last time we were in a defense of country war? I mean, our country. We need to relearn how to wage peace. And I'm okay with all genders waging that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 07:50 AM

75. Only The Wealthy belong in combat

And no one else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 08:20 AM

76. ' Frankie Goes to Hollywood '

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 09:41 AM

77. Having spent two years

in the infantry and one of those on a tour in Vietnam, I am just curious as to why anyone would want to be in the infantry? Maybe someone should make it unequivocally clear to these recruits exactly what it means to do a combat tour as a grunt before we congratulate ourselves too much. To say that a women should be president is good. To say she should be infantry grunts is bad. To say anyone should be one is bad. The pay and working conditions suck. It's as simple as that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 09:55 AM

79. If they want to increase the presence of women in our military

put a few of them on the Joint Chiefs Staff and see what happens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 10:07 AM

80. Women are already in combat ...

This move only gave them the recognition they'd been looking for ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wernothelpless (Reply #80)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 04:23 PM

89. Precisely -- it has been an artificial barrier for well over a decade. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 12:29 PM

84. Interesting takes on your post, brother

Many of us took it simply as an antiwar statement, but others interpreted it as a comment on women in combat--which I don't belive it was. I don't know where you are on the issue, but I suspect you'd support gender equality in the military.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinboy3niner (Reply #84)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 03:58 PM

87. You called it, Loot.

Last edited Sun Jan 27, 2013, 06:06 PM - Edit history (1)

Just an antiwar statement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinboy3niner (Reply #84)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 12:05 AM

96. It took me a day to get past the sexist title and open the thread

However the content of the post gave it an entirely different and wonderful meaning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 04:30 PM

90. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 04:54 PM

92. Agreed.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 11:46 PM

95. I waited a long time before clicking your thread

I saw it yesterday and decided to boycott the mysogonystic title. Today, it just kept growing and staying at the top of the page, and I wondered why on earth so many DU'ers were rec'ing it. So I thought I'd come in and I swear to God, was planning to leave a comment saying the exact same thing you said..."neither should men."

Thank you for the big smile now planted on my face.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 01:42 AM

97. Infantry, armor, artillery.

I heard Rep. Tammy Duckworth mention these as the places where women have been excluded before now. There may be a few others.

I don't know about artillery but I think anybody who has been assigned to an armor or mechanized infantry unit can attest to the fact that there can be a lot of very heavy lifting involved in serving in these units. That's my only real concern with this new policy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moondust (Reply #97)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 05:07 PM

103. HULC to the rescue. That is soon to be "not an issue." For men or women.

They've been working on this for what seems like forever, I remember seeing a tethered prototype way back when and I wondered if they'd ever get the thing off the ground. It looks like they are close to the finish line on this thing:

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/hulc.html

Strap it on, lift two hundred pounds, run, jump, crouch--and it's all on the mechanicals, not the human...

Dismounted warfighters often carry heavy combat loads that increase the stress on the body leading to potential injuries. With a HULC exoskeleton, these heavy loads are transferred to the ground through powered titanium legs without loss of mobility.
The HULC is a completely un-tethered, hydraulic-powered anthropomorphic exoskeleton that provides users with the ability to carry loads of up to 200 pounds for extended periods of time and over all terrains. Its flexible design allows for deep squats, crawls and upper-body lifting.
An onboard micro-computer ensures the exoskeleton moves in concert with the individual. The HULCís modularity allows for major components to be swapped out in the field. Additionally, its unique power-saving design allows the user to operate on battery power for extended missions. When battery power is low, the HULC system continues to support the loads and does not restrict mobility. HULC can also support a maximum load, with or without power.
Lockheed Martin is also exploring exoskeleton designs for industrial use and a wider variety of military mission specific applications.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread